1963-1964 C Body

Just a suggestion here. Maybe it's time 63 64 300,NY,Newport 880 have there own section.
They have always been kinda stuck between FLs and slabs
 
To me, each the 1963 and 1964 Chryslers and Plymouths and Dodge "full-size" cars have their own unique styling and other cues which make then unique, although similar. Whether the grille or other trim items, each to their own. Looking at a friend's '63 Fury 2-dr ht "stock racer", I was amazed at the small details and such on the A-pillar styling plus the degree of rake in the windshield. It was very obvious to me that styling was trying to decrease wind resistance for NASCAR use.

I know we all tend to look at the bigger picture of the car and its main points, but when you look at the little details in the styling and how they were done, it becomes amazing at what lengths that Chrysler Styling went to in some areas. Putting my '67 Newport next to a '68 LeSabre, the extra things that Chrysler did (and GM did NOT do) become very clear, for example. Especially the fact that the center a/c vent in the LeSabre only goes up and down, not sideways, too. BTAIM

Enjoy!
CBODY67
 
little details
One detail that I liked about my '64 New Yorker was the ROUND speedometer. At a glance, it was much easier to read than the "horizontal" types.
64NYDash.JPG
 
My Aunt had a '64 Newport four-door her and Uncle Brownie bought new at Mauro Chrysler in Denver. It was a blue-on-blue sedan with the 383, radio, heater, and that was about it. Very low-optioned car for a Newport. She drove that until she was in her 80s, then her son found her a new Dodge Omni in 1979, which she drove until she couldn't anymore. She missed the acceleration of the Newport. She wasn't afraid of burning off some unnecessary tread, now and then! Her car is what got me being a "Chrysler man" at the ripe old age of eight. Loved the steering wheel and the pushbuttons!

A friend across town is car-sitting a '64 300K convertible for a guy who is having some major health issues. It is a 413; another blue car with blue interior and white top. Solid California car in need of a little TLC. I'll see if i can get a few pics of it this week. Nice car...MIGHT be for sale in the very near future. Yeah, like I need another car, but it IS a letter ragtop!
 
Just a suggestion here. Maybe it's time 63 64 300,NY,Newport 880 have there own section.
They have always been kinda stuck between FLs and slabs

If you were here 10 years ago you'd have seen disagreements on allowing a forwardlook section.
Now you think there should be a section for pre C but after Forwardlooks? How bout FPCBO?

:lol:
 
FWIW:
What became the 63 Chrysler was originally to be a New Imperial. Note the similarity in the front end to the Imperials of that day. The 63/64 Chrysler were the last designs from Exner before he was fired back in 61. The Imperial was just warmed over till the new Elwood Ingel design came out for 64.
 
Just a suggestion my freind! Are those 10 year old posts still here? I would be interested in reading them.
At the FL site there were arguments as to wether or not to allow 62 Chryslers/Dodges
in as FLs?
Definately not 63 and 64 Chrysler,dodge even though they share many of the same 60-64 parts and much exner influence. It would seem that they are a model with no place to go.
I guess that's why they have Facebook sites?
 
When it was decided to feature FL cars in their own format, The 62 to 64 large cars were included due to their influence on C bodys. Basically them and the unibody FL cars are the ancestors to the C bodys. So.... No need for a separate thread, they are included in this FL thread.
 
I have a copy of a PDF chart showing evolution of all Mopar body lines. It shows 1960-64 fullsize as "1st generation unibody", without a letter designation. The information apparently came from Diran Yazejian, a designer at Chrysler from 1959-96. I found an online copy here:

https://fcagroup.pl/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Early-Chrysler-standardization.pdf

When you're trying to figure out parts interchange, it's more important to know which years are mechanically the same rather than similar styling. Mechanically, 63-64 should be close to 60-62 Forward Look cars, even though they may be styled differently.
Neat that this chart ends at 1998 when "Chrysler Corporation" ceased to exist. The only issue I have with the chart is that '79 Cordoba/Magnum are "R" bodies and not "B" bodies.
 
Neat that this chart ends at 1998 when "Chrysler Corporation" ceased to exist. The only issue I have with the chart is that '79 Cordoba/Magnum are "R" bodies and not "B" bodies.
Are you sure? The 78 and 79 Cordoba bodies look identical to me. Wikipedia and Allpar both say they're a B-body from 75-79. Both sites also only list the 4 models in the PDF as R-bodies. Wikipedia may be suspect if that was the only reference, but I would think that Allpar got it right.
 
To me, the R-body cars are evolved B-body cars. With the front K-frame mounted differently to the body structure. When I first looked at mine, it reminded me of the Imperials with the isolated K-frame (from the main front frame structure). Which results in a greater isolation from road situations. Or is it mounted similarly to the Aspen/Volare cars? Might have to do some digging in old parts books to see when those things happened AND how they might relate to the Cordoba/Charger "S and X" cars . . .

Just some thoughts,
CBODY67
 
They may have looked rather strange. However, I was gifted a brand new 1964 Newport sedan at age 16. It was my dads idea of a good reliable kids car! It had a 383 2 Barrel and was VERY FAST. I drove the hell out of it from the Spring of 1964 through Christmas 1969. Car had 250,000 miles on it when dad bought me a 1970 Newport as a Christmas gift. Right now I would take either in a heart beat and the hell with $3.00 a gallon gas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Back
Top